Wikipedia talk:Single-purpose account
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page was nominated for deletion on November 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 Archives |
| 2006-2007 early 2008 |
Contents |
[edit] In a nutshell ...
This topic could benefit from a concise summary. What exactly is the purpose of this piece of information? TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 |
This page in a nutshell: This tag is used to label new accounts 'pov pusher' or 'sockpuppet' by editor's who would like to seem like they are not violating WP:CIVIL because they are not outright calling the new acount a pov pusher or sock puppet. |
[edit] When does a single purpose account become not a single purpose account ?
I came across the SPA tag for the first time today and I feel insulted by it. I don't think it's a good idea at all. It comes across as an accusation, an insult and an attempt to reduce the effects of my voice. I've no idea if that's the intent (well, to be frank, I think I DO know) but that's how it comes across to me. I won't be contributing anything else to this encyclopaedia as a result of it. NO great loss on Wikipedia's part I'm sure. As I walk out the door though, I'd like to make a couple of points 1. I read further up the page that the tag is used because articles for deletion have become a vote, even though they shouldn't be because that's contrary to policy. If that's the case then this tag is a blatant attempt to remove or reduce one of the "votes" i.e. mine, because I haven't contributed enough. It occurs to me that when you have a policy that isn't working, it's a bad idea to try and "shore it up" by making additional punitive side rules. You're better off just addressing the shortfall of the policy, whatever that is, and either fixing the policy, or implementing it correctly. By using this "SPA" tag I think you're avoiding the real problem. 2. At what point does an "SPA" become a non "SPA"? Is it after 10 contributions, 20, 50, 100? Exactly how many articles do they need to contribute to before they're no longer an "SPA". Is it 2, 3 4, 100? At what point does this dirty little badge get removed, so the contributor can rest easy at night knowing that they've been "promoted" up the ranks of Wikipedia. When do they go from being labelled a potential "Wikipedia criminal" to a normal citizen? Numsor (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is not important number of edits but what user is editing. If he is making 100 edits about Manchester United (example) this is SPA account. On other side if user is making 5 edits about Manchester United and 5 edits about London then this is not SPA account. --Rjecina (talk) 04:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is still a ridiculously insulting tag. AfD decisions are SUPPOSED to be made on the merits of whether or not the article meets the Wikipedia guidelines- not the number of votes nor the 'popularity' of the commenting editor. And whether the convincing arguement comes as the first submission by an editor, by an editor that has made ten thousand edits across hundreds of articles or from an editor that has made 5 edits to the article under question should make no difference. The truth is that this tag is solely weilded as an insult and a way to discount the opinions of an editor; and as such is in violation of WP:AGFTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree wholly with the typical usage of the tag, but its proponents have a point in arguing that it is intended solely to provide more information on the nature of the editor in question, not as a means to insult or discredit them. If, for instance, a flood of meat puppets comes due to a notice posted on some forum, it is usually nice to know which editors are part of that swarm and which are not. One is not supposed to immediately discount the opinions of SPAs as there are several varieties of them, and someone who only edits one article is likely to be more knowledgeable about it than someone who has never even seen it before. That said, they also commonly have COI and POV problems. Thus it is useful to identify them solely to provide background on the editor. In the case of the person who started this topic, the fact that a person set up an account and voiced an opinion in an AFD as his first edit looks somewhat suspicious, and the tagging was wholly justifiable. It provides information to the closing admin that is used in making his determination. It is not a violation of AFG because someone with a POV or COI problem likely doesn't realize it, and they are not necessarily acting in bad faith. Regardless, the tag states a simple fact: The editor in question has not edited widely outside the article or AFD. And that's all it is intended to mean. What incorrect conclusions some editors seem to draw from it are on their own heads, not that of the tag's.--Dycedarg ж 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- If editors come in with COI and NPOV, you can tell that from their comments, you dont need a tag. I have yet to see an instance that the tag did anything useful that could not be better accomplished in a more civil manner. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think one of the major points regarding SPAs is that they simply should not be allowed to get involved in AfDs. If SPAs suddenly showed up one day in order to "keep" or "delete" an article, I would be very suspicious, especially if they had absolutely no edit history whatsoever. Who wouldn't be suspicious? We're all rational here. The problem is that determining whether SPAs fall into the meatpuppet or sockpuppet categories is time consuming. It's far more efficient to just disallow SPAs in the AfD process from the start. But these are subjects that are best discussed at the Village Pump or at the AfD policy discussion page, not here. J Readings (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, the number of meat puppets or sock puppets showing up and voicing irrelevent opinions in an AfD shouldnt matter because the decision is NOT supposed to be a vote - it is supposed to be based on application of relevant WP policy and signalling out an account as SPA does absolutely nothing to impact whether or not that account has made a valid arguement based on WP policies. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think one of the major points regarding SPAs is that they simply should not be allowed to get involved in AfDs. If SPAs suddenly showed up one day in order to "keep" or "delete" an article, I would be very suspicious, especially if they had absolutely no edit history whatsoever. Who wouldn't be suspicious? We're all rational here. The problem is that determining whether SPAs fall into the meatpuppet or sockpuppet categories is time consuming. It's far more efficient to just disallow SPAs in the AfD process from the start. But these are subjects that are best discussed at the Village Pump or at the AfD policy discussion page, not here. J Readings (talk) 03:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- If editors come in with COI and NPOV, you can tell that from their comments, you dont need a tag. I have yet to see an instance that the tag did anything useful that could not be better accomplished in a more civil manner. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree wholly with the typical usage of the tag, but its proponents have a point in arguing that it is intended solely to provide more information on the nature of the editor in question, not as a means to insult or discredit them. If, for instance, a flood of meat puppets comes due to a notice posted on some forum, it is usually nice to know which editors are part of that swarm and which are not. One is not supposed to immediately discount the opinions of SPAs as there are several varieties of them, and someone who only edits one article is likely to be more knowledgeable about it than someone who has never even seen it before. That said, they also commonly have COI and POV problems. Thus it is useful to identify them solely to provide background on the editor. In the case of the person who started this topic, the fact that a person set up an account and voiced an opinion in an AFD as his first edit looks somewhat suspicious, and the tagging was wholly justifiable. It provides information to the closing admin that is used in making his determination. It is not a violation of AFG because someone with a POV or COI problem likely doesn't realize it, and they are not necessarily acting in bad faith. Regardless, the tag states a simple fact: The editor in question has not edited widely outside the article or AFD. And that's all it is intended to mean. What incorrect conclusions some editors seem to draw from it are on their own heads, not that of the tag's.--Dycedarg ж 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is still a ridiculously insulting tag. AfD decisions are SUPPOSED to be made on the merits of whether or not the article meets the Wikipedia guidelines- not the number of votes nor the 'popularity' of the commenting editor. And whether the convincing arguement comes as the first submission by an editor, by an editor that has made ten thousand edits across hundreds of articles or from an editor that has made 5 edits to the article under question should make no difference. The truth is that this tag is solely weilded as an insult and a way to discount the opinions of an editor; and as such is in violation of WP:AGFTheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- This is a prime example of the exact kind of editor that causes my dislike of the tag and this page. It says right next the the description of the tag "In communal decision-making, single purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added below their name, as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate. Please do not take this as an attack on your editing, some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear who the new editors are." It is meant to indicate which accounts are new and may be suspect, not indicate which comments should be ignored as probable sock/meat puppets. SPA accounts should not be discounted as meat puppets or sock puppets out of hand, and people doing that is exactly why I don't like the tag. Sure, they could be, but you can't know that. If a person sees an AFD tag on an article about which they are knowledgeable they have as much right to start an account and participate as they do to edit any other page in Wikipedia.--Dycedarg ж 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- I expressed a personal opinion about the AfD process and how to resolve potential problems (not opinions about SPAs in general), which frankly shouldn't be used as an opportunity to make sweeping characterizations about the SPA information page in an attempt to remove it. If anyone has a problem with the AfD structure, it should be taken up at either the Village Pump or the AfD policy page. Best, J Readings (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I used your comment because it was an example of the type of attitude regarding SPAs that I don't like. I wasn't making sweeping judgments about the SPA page, just about how people use it. If something is commonly misused, I tend to like it less; I don't want to remove the page but I would like to see a difference in how it is used. And I don't have a problem with the AfD structure, just the way people act during them sometimes.--Dycedarg ж 07:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- I expressed a personal opinion about the AfD process and how to resolve potential problems (not opinions about SPAs in general), which frankly shouldn't be used as an opportunity to make sweeping characterizations about the SPA information page in an attempt to remove it. If anyone has a problem with the AfD structure, it should be taken up at either the Village Pump or the AfD policy page. Best, J Readings (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is a prime example of the exact kind of editor that causes my dislike of the tag and this page. It says right next the the description of the tag "In communal decision-making, single purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added below their name, as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate. Please do not take this as an attack on your editing, some users just find it easier to discuss issues when it is clear who the new editors are." It is meant to indicate which accounts are new and may be suspect, not indicate which comments should be ignored as probable sock/meat puppets. SPA accounts should not be discounted as meat puppets or sock puppets out of hand, and people doing that is exactly why I don't like the tag. Sure, they could be, but you can't know that. If a person sees an AFD tag on an article about which they are knowledgeable they have as much right to start an account and participate as they do to edit any other page in Wikipedia.--Dycedarg ж 03:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
(unindent) I have not seen anyone articulate any definition of SPA as tool, that even when used properly it would be a tool that supports WP policies and guidelines. And there is ample evidence that SPA is frequently misused. I have not stated that the AfD process is broken, I think that might be your view, J Readings, and perhaps you see SPA as a tool to 'fix' the broken AfD - but I fail to see that as a tool it actually works for that function either. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The guideline says "Decision-making tags. In communal decision-making, single purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added below their name". So, really, adding a single purpose account tag to someone's comment or edit is identical to saying "this person is astroturfing or vote stacking" or, if one were to be kinder "I believe this person is astroturfing or vote stacking". Note that when I say "identical" I really do mean identical. The tag itself does not have any meaning, it's just three letters. It's meaning can only be obtained by reading the guideline that it links to and the guideline it links to states in black and white that the reason you have an SPA tag next to your name is because you are suspected of vote stacking or astro turfing. You wouldn't be able to get away with going to a page and adding "this person is astroturfing or vote stacking" after each comment made by someone that hasn't contributed to another article and yet that is exactly what is being done Numsor (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
If you all hate the page so much, I have two suggestions for you: First, start a discussion about how it could be edited to be less insulting or demeaning. If that fails, or if you believe it to be beyond all hope of salvation already, start an MFD. Sitting here complaining on the talk page about how horrible it is accomplishes virtually nothing.--Dycedarg ж 21:06, 12 Februar[1]y 2008 (UTC)
-
- For the record and to avoid having my actions or points misrepresented, I don't hate the page. My concern is with the SPA tag and how it's used. I feel like you've said you do, that I don't wholly agree with it's typical usage - except that I just don't agree with it's usage at all. Also (and again, so my actions aren't misrepresented) I'm not sitting here complaining. I'm engaging in a discussion, which I think is a good idea before running off deleting or changing things that others might have an opinion on or some input about. Numsor (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- "First, start a discussion about how it could be edited to be less insulting or demeaning." I kind of thought we were. I have been waiting for someone to either provide some kind of a valid basis for the existance/usage to be able to know where editing might begin on the page - what target those who use the page want it for. But perhaps jumping right into WP:BRD process would be the best way to determine where/how users of the tag stand. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to imply that you weren't trying to be constructive. I just meant that all you were doing was pointing out what's wrong with the page. That's all well and good, up to a point. But after a while it just looks like you're standing around complaining. At some point discussion has to turn to what can be done to improve the page, not just point out what's wrong with it, and that is what I intended to encourage.--Dycedarg ж 04:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's not the case at all. It doesn't look like I (or anyone else) is standing around complaining, except in the two instances where you have written or implied that someone is standing around complaining. That's a distortion of what's going on and I don't think you need to present that distortion as what I'm doing (obviously you're at liberty to do what you wish, I just don't feel that you need to. It doesn't seem helpful or useful, to me). If other people have an opinion or some views, let them state them and develop them until they emerge (or don't) into something that everyone agrees with. You don't need to beat them down, have an argument with them, or summarize their views for them (or indeed do anything). Here's an example - you don't need to summarize my views as "all you were doing was pointing out what's wrong with the page". I'm not. My first comment has a few components - one of which is to express a view that the tag is wrong (not the page), another of which is to point out that using the tag is a way of avoiding a problem that should be addressed (the problem being that deletion discussions are votes rather than based on policy). Both of those views are completely different to "all you were doing was pointing out what's wrong with the page", so you don't need to summarize them as that (obviously you can it you want, but I don't feel it's an accurate summary). For clarity, I'll state my own opinion clearly. The SPA tag should be deleted. After reading the previous deletion discussions I'm not sure that's an option that people are open to, however, I do think it's helpful to know that other people do or don't like the way the tag is being used and what the current views and arguments for and against it are - hence the discussion. Numsor (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry to imply that you weren't trying to be constructive. I just meant that all you were doing was pointing out what's wrong with the page. That's all well and good, up to a point. But after a while it just looks like you're standing around complaining. At some point discussion has to turn to what can be done to improve the page, not just point out what's wrong with it, and that is what I intended to encourage.--Dycedarg ж 04:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- "First, start a discussion about how it could be edited to be less insulting or demeaning." I kind of thought we were. I have been waiting for someone to either provide some kind of a valid basis for the existance/usage to be able to know where editing might begin on the page - what target those who use the page want it for. But perhaps jumping right into WP:BRD process would be the best way to determine where/how users of the tag stand. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- For the record and to avoid having my actions or points misrepresented, I don't hate the page. My concern is with the SPA tag and how it's used. I feel like you've said you do, that I don't wholly agree with it's typical usage - except that I just don't agree with it's usage at all. Also (and again, so my actions aren't misrepresented) I'm not sitting here complaining. I'm engaging in a discussion, which I think is a good idea before running off deleting or changing things that others might have an opinion on or some input about. Numsor (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A Simple List of Suggestions
TheRedPenOfDoom and Numsor: Let me make a suggestion that echoes what User talk:Dycedarg sensibly asked. It would be useful for other editors to know exactly what the problem is with the current project page wording. If you listed below the specific sentences or clauses in that page that you feel are either not factually correct for an information page (which this is, of course) or could be worded a little differently that would make sense. And incidentally, I foolishly expressed a personal opinion about AfDs and new users (not necessarily SPAs) on this talk page, when I should have just stated it someday at the Village Pump or the AfD talk page. My apologies. I sincerely hope and would appreciate to learn that my comment did not provoke some kind of potential and unnecessary edit warring or other disruptions to the information page. That was never my intention. In good faith, J Readings (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- The specific current language is not really my issue. As explained above - it appears to me that the 'single purpose account' is either
- misapplied (from frequently misapplied to almost always misapplied depending on what your definition of SPA is) or
- even when applied correctly it does not enhance wikipedia's puposes.
- Either an account is putting forward valid reasons in an AfD or they are not putting forth valid reasons for an AfD. Either way, the fact that the account has worked on few or no other accounts has no bearing on whether or not their arguements in the AfD are supported by/are not supported by WP policies.
- So labeling an account SPA serves no valid purpose as far as I can see. Is there something in Wikipedia policies that I am missing - that only certain people are allowed a voice on certain topics? If the new account is being disruptive, it should be dealt with for being disruptive, not for only working on a few articles. If an account is pushing a POV, it should be dealt with for pushing a POV, not because the editor only worked on a selected article or two instead of 20. If an account is a suspected sockpuppet, it should be dealt with straight forwardly under the guidelines of suspected sockpuppetry instead of the weasle tag of "i think your a sock puppet, but I cant prove it -so I will not put myself in the position that i could be accused of violating WP:Civil by outright calling you a sockpuppet, but I will just imply it by labeling you a SPA."
- Where in any of this is there value of SPA? I just don't see it.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
-
- If there is no value in the term SPA, the article should be deleted. If there is value in the term SPA it should be able to be stated by a nutshell summary. If a summary of objectives is not attempted than this discussion is doomed to degenerate.
-
- Everyone's first edit to a mainspace article makes them a SPA. Most users move on to other articles, some don't, and some never make another edit. What is not covered in any other policy or guideline that makes the SPA tag worthwhile? I am serious and not just trying to push a POV. The community uses the term frequently, so there should be an answer. If that answer is a positive or negative usage (according to consensus) then that should be elucidated in the article IMO.Ward20 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The primary problem with this whole thing is that the term SPA covers a variety of editor types. An SPA could be: A. An account whose user is only interested in a narrow band of articles or even only one article, and only edits within that band. Such an editor might have POV or COI issues depending on the motivation behind the lack of variety in his edits. or B. An account created for the sole purpose of voting in an AFD and then leaving forever, or every so often continuing on to become a normal editor. Such an account has a rather high probability of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, although there are editors whose first edits are to an AFD due to having been drawn into wanting to edit Wikipedia because they saw an article they liked getting deleted. And within those two broad categories there are a wide variety of motivations for the actions and the editing patterns, and those are impossible to determine. So by putting the tag next to someones name you should be simply stating that their vote may or may not have motivations other than Wikipedia policy. And that is it. Yet I've seen editors take the tag as meaning "Meat/sock puppet alert. Ignore everything they have to say and/or argue incessantly with them until they leave." multiple times. And this is what I don't like about the tag. It has implications too broad to be simply taken as an indicator of an assumption of bad faith, which is what it seems to be used for much of the time.--Dycedarg ж 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible to say that during last few months I edit on wikipedia more like vandal police for Balkan related article of anything else. My thinking about SPA accounts is very bad, because ulmost always (in Balkan related articles) they are POV. Like extreme example I will show user:Justiceinwiki. All his POV edits have been about 1 article list of his edits. In the end he has not been banned because of that but because he has used multiple accounts to edit "his" article. For last 3 months I and another 3 - 5 users are edit warring against SPA accounts created by banned user:Velebit aka user:NovaNova aka user:Pederkovic Ante aka ... To make long story short I am against SPA accounts because in 90 % of situation they are POV accounts. In perfect world we will have 1 definition for POV SPA account and another for normal SPA account but in our world this is not possible. --Rjecina (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, vandal patrol is difficult, but I do not see that SPA tag helps prevent vandalism in any way. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is possible to say that during last few months I edit on wikipedia more like vandal police for Balkan related article of anything else. My thinking about SPA accounts is very bad, because ulmost always (in Balkan related articles) they are POV. Like extreme example I will show user:Justiceinwiki. All his POV edits have been about 1 article list of his edits. In the end he has not been banned because of that but because he has used multiple accounts to edit "his" article. For last 3 months I and another 3 - 5 users are edit warring against SPA accounts created by banned user:Velebit aka user:NovaNova aka user:Pederkovic Ante aka ... To make long story short I am against SPA accounts because in 90 % of situation they are POV accounts. In perfect world we will have 1 definition for POV SPA account and another for normal SPA account but in our world this is not possible. --Rjecina (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- The primary problem with this whole thing is that the term SPA covers a variety of editor types. An SPA could be: A. An account whose user is only interested in a narrow band of articles or even only one article, and only edits within that band. Such an editor might have POV or COI issues depending on the motivation behind the lack of variety in his edits. or B. An account created for the sole purpose of voting in an AFD and then leaving forever, or every so often continuing on to become a normal editor. Such an account has a rather high probability of being a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, although there are editors whose first edits are to an AFD due to having been drawn into wanting to edit Wikipedia because they saw an article they liked getting deleted. And within those two broad categories there are a wide variety of motivations for the actions and the editing patterns, and those are impossible to determine. So by putting the tag next to someones name you should be simply stating that their vote may or may not have motivations other than Wikipedia policy. And that is it. Yet I've seen editors take the tag as meaning "Meat/sock puppet alert. Ignore everything they have to say and/or argue incessantly with them until they leave." multiple times. And this is what I don't like about the tag. It has implications too broad to be simply taken as an indicator of an assumption of bad faith, which is what it seems to be used for much of the time.--Dycedarg ж 09:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Everyone's first edit to a mainspace article makes them a SPA. Most users move on to other articles, some don't, and some never make another edit. What is not covered in any other policy or guideline that makes the SPA tag worthwhile? I am serious and not just trying to push a POV. The community uses the term frequently, so there should be an answer. If that answer is a positive or negative usage (according to consensus) then that should be elucidated in the article IMO.Ward20 (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
After reviewing talk pages, most of what is being discussed has been brought up before. IMO the present use of the term is used more pejoratively than when first originated. The SPA information page/essay (there seems to be differences of opinion about what it is) came into existence March 2006. Due to concern the term would be abused, an unsuccessful AfD was conducted in November 2006. Reading the AfD is informative as most stated the SPA term should not be used pejoratively. I thought this passage was notable in describing a reasonable use for the page, "we should actually be using this page to talk about how SPAs can be perfectly fine, and to make it clear that being an SPA alone shouldn't have significant weight. We want to keep our eyes on trolls, but we also want to protect good faith SPAs, so probably the best thing is to use the page for both."
In April 2007 the term SPA made it into policy with this diff by User:Radiant!. I could find no discussion before this was added to the Wikipedia:Username policy, but there was some dissent after it was added. Interestingly, the introduction of SPA into the policy seemed to put a lot of weight on POV pushing and sock puppetry, and was included under the heading of Using multiple accounts where it still resides. It appears to me the SPA term was included into policy in a rather haphazard manner in an incorrect section, but that should probably go onto the Username policy talk page.
I do think this article should explain the way the term is used on WP, but needs to say that SPAs can be perfectly fine if they follow policy, better describe constructive use of the term, and strongly warn of abusive use.
As an example, the following sentence makes a statement but I don't think it has a clear purpose.
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks — many may find the accusation of being a single-purpose account as insulting.
Ward20 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Since there has been significant discussion with not a lot of disagreement, I am just going to start making some small changes slowly. I will not be offended if I get reverted or someone changes something I have written. Ward20 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your careful and thorough approach. So far so good by me! TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
|
This page in a nutshell:
|
Its a very large nutshell, but I think encapsules general WP philosophy and is a place to start from. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- RedPen, seems a very good starting point, a few changes I will throw out for brainstorming, but I don't think them necessarily better than what is there presently.
This page in a nutshell: A single purpose account describes various editors
- that may focus their editing on a limited number of articles in which they have expertise. WP:NPOV contributions from experts are welcomed.
- who may be new and not aware of Wikipedia policies. Please courteously direct them to the appropriate guidelines.
- whose account creation may be for the sole purpose of advancing a specific POV. If such actions are suspected, act with discretion and the assumption the editor is attempting to improve Wikipedia.
- I like the premise of the second sentence in the article and have tried to extend it a little more. Proposal below for comment:
- Experienced editors are expected to comply with the goals of the encyclopedia. However, a significant portion of single purpose accounts (knowingly or unknowingly) find themselves in opposition with Wikipedia's neutrality, advocacy, or conflict of interest standards, resulting in extra effort and often careful consideration by the community when working with these editors.
- Ward20 (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Essay or guidline
I've pointed this out before, but the "information page" tag at the top of this page is homemade. There is no such thing (as far as I can tell ... please show me some precedents). This page is an essay (expressing a group of editors' opinion about SPA's) or a guideline for how to be and/or deal with such accounts.
One reason I bring this up is that a perfectly legitimate, and very important, SPA-type account occured to me, namely, Wikipedia:School and university projects. If a teacher assigns students to editing Wikipedia, they are very likely to work (during the project) on narrowly focused themes. I'd like to add this point, but I'm not sure what kind of page other editor's view this as.
The best solution, IMO, is to propose this as a guideline and adjust it as necessary to that end.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Changing back to "essay"
Seeing no objections, I'm changing the tag back to essay. This will also avoid this sort thing in the future. Jehochman is right that "POV tagging an essay is disruption" but Stagalj arguably (I haven't looked into the case) did not know it was an essay (the fact that it was tagged both as an essay and an "information page" may have been confusing.)--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion - SPAs are better if they're labelled as such
I propose it would make everyone's life easier if SPA's labelled themselves as such. As User:PalestineRemembered I'm positive that the interaction of good-faith editors with me is made easier. I can't be sure if there are other editors who feel uncomfortable about it, but if that were to happen, I suspect it would be an administrative issue and an indication of problems not of my making. What cannot be right is the arrival of new editors who spend a prolonged amount of time on one article or set of articles, but nobody can tell whether it is deliberate or not. PRtalk 16:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
